Featured Authors

Deborah Haarsma serves as the President of BioLogos, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

N.T. Wright is a leading biblical scholar, former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, and current Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Mary's College in the University of St. Andrews.

Adam and the Genome: Some Thoughts from Pete Enns

Editor's Note: This post is part of a series of responses to Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science, a new book by Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight. Readers are strongly encouraged to read senior editor Jim Stump's introduction to the series. Also, we're proud to announce that both McKnight and Venema will take part in a special session at our upcoming Christ and Creation conference in Houston, TX (March 29-31), discussing the topics of this book. We'd love to see you there!

Dennis and Scot have collaborated on a wonderful book on the ongoing controversy (hopefully becoming more of a discussion) within Evangelicalism concerning biological evolution. Dennis lays out the genomic evidence, in a way that only trained scientists can, and Scot rehearses the well-known contextual issues and recurring questions that biblical scholars of both Testaments have been engaging for the past century and a half, and that need to continue to be engaged. Both authors are admirably honest in drawing their conclusion.

I am happy to leave the scientific matters to real scientists rather than pretend, since my formal scientific training effectively ended when we were told to dissect a kitty in sophomore high school biology (but I digress). Let me focus my comments on Scot’s half of the book, the biblical side, on which I have taught and written a fair amount, including my 2012 book The Evolution of Adam. I find myself in substantive agreement with Scot’s conclusions, and I hope the relentless yet winsome pressure from Scot and others will continue to help those who are looking for ways to maintain their Christian faith and accept evolution, and perhaps convince those who aren’t sure this is even possible.

In the interest of space, I will summarize in list form what I think are the central issues of biblical scholarship that Scot brings to the table, while also giving a few twists of my own. There are certainly places where I would put things a bit differently (for example, if I were king I would ban the singularly ambiguous and unhelpful word “archetype” from any and all future discussions of Adam), but those differences, I would say, are in-house matters that do not affect the overall points Scot makes so compellingly.

Now, to my list. I have eleven points, and the first two are central.

Any discussion of the “historical Adam” cannot proceed one step forward without taking into account the story of Adam in its ancient context. I don’t mean to suggest this is easy as pie. There is a lot to work through, and room for some variation in points of view. But the conversation cannot go on as if we’ve learned nothing in the last 150 years about antiquity and the function that origins stories played in ancient societies. Placing Adam in his ancient context immediately and significantly affects how Genesis is brought into the discussion over evolution.

What goes for Adam goes for Paul. Paul’s understanding of Adam involves us in much more than simply accepting Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15 as “plain” readings of Genesis 2-3. Rather it puts us squarely in the middle of Paul’s ancient hermeneutical context—the world of Greco-Romanism and Second Temple Judaism. Coming to terms with Paul and his context, again, immediately and significantly affects how one engages the evolution/Christianity conundrum.

Scot explicates these two points with clarity and conviction, and his section of the book is essentially an elaboration on the implications of these two observations. The remaining points are in no particular order.

Scientific concordism—the assumption that the biblical origins stories are (must be) compatible with science—essentially ignores point 1 above and therefore must be rejected as a reading that imposes modern concerns and questions onto an ancient text.

There is no “fall” in Genesis 3, nor in Romans 5, in the sense in which “fall” is often understood: as inherited guilt from a historical Adam’s transgression. The idea of every human sinning “in Adam” is foreign to the biblical texts (Scot’s chapter on Romans is worth reading carefully here), and accepting this observation significantly tempers the problem evolution causes for Christian doctrine.

Paul’s Adam in Romans is not a “plain reading” of the Adam story but an interpretation of that story for theological purposes that are not rooted in Genesis. This is largely Scot’s point in chapter 8, where he rehearses the diverse ways in which Adam was interpreted in Second Temple Judaism. Paul as a Jew of the time was engaged in the same type of creative interpretive exercise as were others before him. This is a vital chapter, though it will likely be hard for some to accept the notion that Paul is anything other than the true interpreter of the intention of the writer of Genesis (a core element of inerrantist exegesis). This point is further borne out by observing how Paul elsewhere and the other New Testament writers intentionally, knowingly, re-read, reframed, and transformed Israel’s story in light of an unanticipated ending. In Romans 5, Paul is not a systematic expositor of the original meaning of Genesis 3, but a creative, imaginative theologian, who is reading the biblical story backwards: he begins with the conclusion (the resurrected Jesus) and draws upon the language of Genesis 3 to drive home his understanding of the gospel, which features the full inclusion of Gentiles.

The controversy surrounding evolution stems not so much from the Bible as it does from deeply ingrained but false expectations imposed onto the Bible that put it onto a collision course with science. The problem is not the Bible, but how we have been taught to read it. Commonly, the assumption is made that (as I’ve heard Denis Lamoureux describe it) evolution imposes problems onto “the Bible,” and that “the Bible” is the stable factor that evolution needs to be “grafted” onto somehow. The truth, though, is that our readings of Genesis and Romans are what need to be adjusted to allow the graft to take (see #s 1 and 2 above).

Many Christians today assume that the writer of Genesis intended to give (in some sense) an historical account of origins. It is worth asking, however, whether this assumption is true: was Genesis 2-3 in fact ever intended to be “historical?” (see pp. 106-108). We might be underestimating ancient authors and their ability to know a good story when they saw one. Put another way, we should not impose upon ancient authors the modern fixation on the central importance of historicity as the conveyer of truth.

Related to #7, I believe (though Scot may demur) we need to rehabilitate the concept of “myth” for discussing the Adam story. The term as it is used generally in biblical scholarship does not mean “false” but denotes an ancient means of expressing beliefs of ultimate reality in concrete and contextually meaningful ways. If we can get over that hurdle, we will be in a better position to focus on the theology of the Adam story rather than its historicity.

The clear parallel between Adam and Israel, already noted in rabbinic Judaism, is a crucial element in understanding Genesis 2-3, and—if accepted—decentralizes the historical question concerning Adam and thus eases tensions with evolution. Adam is presented in Genesis 2-3 as a preview of Israel’s history: both are (1) “created” by God (Adam from dust, Israel out of slavery), (2) placed in a lush land (Eden/Canaan), (3) given commands to follow (the Tree of Knowledge/Mosaic Law), and (4) are “exiled” for disobedience, both of which are described as “death” (Genesis 2:17; Ezekiel 37 and Deuteronomy 30).

Genesis 1 reflects the seven-day Sabbath week, certainly, and perhaps also the Temple construction (following ancient Near Eastern parallels), which is completed in seven years. This strongly suggests a liturgical/theological purpose to the creation story, namely its central focus on worship and the liturgical week, which further suggests that the story was written for that purpose. This observation is supported by the generally accepted scholarly view that Genesis 1 was written in light of Israel’s later liturgical practices: the origins story reflects later Israelite practices. This same logic should be applied, then, to the Adam story to see it (following #9 above) as Israel’s later reflection on its history written into their origins story.

Scot has at several points in his section statements that summarize his argument and orient the reader for what is to come. I’d like to end by citing one of them:

The category of a “historical Adam” is an anachronism with respect to the text because (1) it comes from the modern world of science, history, anthropology, biology, and genetics, and it is also accompanied by the quest to see if what the Bible says about the past can be proved true (and therefore believed as true); (2) any talk of the “historical Adam” is steeped in the theological conversation about original sin, which is not present in Genesis 3; and (3) the historical, biological, and genetic Adam and Eve are not, strictly speaking, what the writers of Genesis 1-3 were focused on. . . . the primal couple is created to reveal what humans in general are assigned to do in God’s cosmic temple. (p. 145, my emphasis)

I resonate with this comment, though I would (1) replace “not, strictly speaking” with “not remotely,” (2) understand “the primal couple is created” to mean created by the writer of Genesis 2-3, and (3) not tie Adam’s function in the story so exclusively to “cosmic temple.” Nevertheless, what we have here in Scot’s section is an Adam presented fairly and compellingly who is not “historical” and who presents no barrier to the acceptance of evolution.

My only overall criticism of the book is that it is pitched too high for the “people in the pew” who might most benefit from its content. But there is the rub: complexity may be unavoidable, given the technical realities of science and the subtle and layered nature of biblical/historical scholarship. All in all, for those willing to put in the effort, this book is worth their time and may well open up doors and windows onto a deeper faith.

Notes

Citations

Enns, P. (2017, January 31). Adam and the Genome: Some Thoughts from Pete EnnsRetrieved March 19, 2018, from /blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/adam-and-the-genome-some-thoughts-from-pete-enns

About the Author

Pete Enns is the Abram S. Clemens Professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University. He is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for BioLogos and author of many books and commentaries, including Inspiration and Incarnation, The Evolution of Adam, and The Bible Tells Me So. His most recent book is The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires Our Trust More Than Our "Correct" Beliefs.

Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics

"What kind of evidence would somebody need to have in order to be rationally compelled to say that an event was a miracle? That person would have to know that this event could not possibly be explained by future science. But not only is such a belief unwarranted, it’s also bad for future science to believe it."

These provocative words are written by Princeton philosopher Hans Halvorson (a Christian), in an article that itself provoked some good discussion when we posted it last week.

Check out the full article (link in comments), and then respond to the quote above. Does calling something a "miracle" put it in danger of being debunked by future scientific advances? Is there a different way of thinking about the concept of a miracle, that might satisfy his concerns? Feel free to discuss below. ... See moreSee less

Hard for me to see that the Incarnation is not a miracle. For others , God could be working on a quantum level?? But does the latter fall into”God of the Gaps?”

5 hours ago · 1

Amen🌀 Jesus doesn't care about Alabama Crimson Tide 🏈 football. Instead, He loves 🌀 Spring and the start of ⚾ baseball season. That's why He started His own story, "In the Big inning..." Just watch 🌀 His wind-up! You need to start reading your 📖 Bible!

3 hours ago

One thing for sure, it is more a philosophical question than a religious one.

7 hours ago · 2

Great article. In answer to you question about a different way of thinking about miracles that would "satisfy his concern", to me it would make sense to explain a miracle in terms of something that everyone (religious and non-religious alike) would have no explanation for, given our current understanding of science.

Science will never describe the full expanse of reality. Science is not geared to that end. This is basic knowledge.
Reason is the handmaiden of faith because faith takes us where reason cannot go. As such, the only thing that will ever describe the fill expanse of reality is faith supernaturally given by God, i.e. God graciously enlightening the intellect. Reason gives way to faith because reason is limited in its capacity to describe reality.
This is not to say reason is not essential. It is the handmaiden of faith because it is a true and good servant to faith. As such faith and reason never contradict, but faith does transcend reason.

10 hours ago · 5

I'm tired of these types of questions constantly being proposed. It was not a scientist who discovered that dead human beings do not rise from the dead (which is different than Jesus resurrection) it was simple human experience. Therefore, the question is rather silly to ask. My first reply is to ask: who cares if Jesus resurrection contradicts science? My second reply is to make the observation that this question is phrased in such a way that science is presupposed as the final arbiter of truth claims like the resurrection of Jesus. Thirdly, how exactly could scientists study the resurrection of Jesus? Scripture tells us that God raised Jesus from the dead. Can science study this claim? Fourth, it would be one thing to subject the resurrection to some sort of scientific investigation ( I know not what or how) and a completely different thing to study what the resurrection of Jesus means for me or you personally. It seems Biologos is in need of some good theologians and philosophers to add to this conversation. Finally, this question smacks of a form of Evidentialism that would make faith subject to the vagarities of evidence. In the end I have to affirm that it matters little to me if the resurrection of Jesus did contradict science. On another note, one could ask: whose "science" and which scientists?

3 hours ago · 1

Exactly so.

11 hours ago · 1

Mmmmmm, I would say that a resurrection is contradictory to observed evidence, but that's fine. A God that is truly supernatural would act supernaturally at times. Although, I suppose God could whip up a truly natural Star Trek hypospray to overcome the decay process and relaunch the body's systems.